amy_e--"It's too bad Hillary is running on her own record and not trying to ride [Bill's] coattails even a little."

I will politely disagree here. It seems all of Clinton's "record" is essentially the other Clinton's record.

I lived in Iowa for five years, and I really don't see how it should be a bellweather for the election as a whole. I think its population at most mirrors the rural/small town vote in Ohio, which could turn the election one way or another, but otherwise... Very white, very Germanic, very agricultural, somewhat religious, and where it's industrialized, very unionized. It's also a neighbor of Illinois, so Obama *should* have an edge there. Clinton's Illinois years are too far behind her to resonate with Iowans.

I was there during the 93 floods, and I remember Bill Clinton visiting. His response was swift and compassionate. It's too bad Hillary is running on her own record and not trying to ride his coattails even a little. If she brought up the floods (especially in contrast to Bush's disastrous response to Katrina) she could generate a little nostalgia for the good ole days when the federal government cared about the difficulties of ordinary people.

lylepink--

"Your assement comes despite the assumption that the dems should win in 08."

Yes, the above is true based on generic "Democrat" vs. "Republican" candidate polling. But head to head, it's basically even. We're still in a divided country, even if things have swung left a bit.

I agree that Hillary has a shot. I put her in the category of Kerry--and I don't mean that sarcastically. I picked Kerry in September before Iowa 04 as the only one who had a shot against Bush. I gave him a 50% chance. I thought Bush was going to be tough to beat despite his ineptitude.

I see something similar in Biden as I did in Kerry this round, but without all of the baggage Hillary has. I do think he has a much bigger hill to climb and as I said I don't think a top finish in Iowa is very realistic.

Biden isn't perfect. But I think he has the ability to draw independents.

"the repubs, from what I have seen and heard, are only afraid of Hillary. This is something I cannot explain"

She also motivates Republicans to turn out.

In our divided country turnout is everything, as it was for Bush in 04.

Dave's comments: "Last I checked, George Bush was not running so I'm pretty sure this will not affect his electability."

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, a key strategy needs to be to portray the Republican nominee as "Bush chapter 3." This should be especially effective if it's Giuliani, since he supports all Bush initiatives and has done nothing to differentiate himself from Bush. The others have done little to differentiate themselves from Bush either, for that matter.

I'm amazed that Giuliani picked up the endorsement of Pat Robertson. It goes to prove a point I've made for a long time: Conservatism is not about values; it's about money. Still, it will be very interesting to see how Republicans can try to spin Giuliani as the "family values" candidate or the defender of morality.

Of course, Giuliani's whole strategy seems to be to continue the Republican attempt to milk all they can out of September 11. It's not that he did anything about September 11. Like Bush, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the support people give their leaders in such times. Last November the clock seemed to have run out on Republicans' September 11 scare tactics to win votes. I just hope that proves to be the case.

Real leaders with real ideas about dealing with the problem of terrorism are needed. But we don't need more idealogues and demagogues who just use September 11 to create fear and get votes.

I also have to agree that the people dismissing Obama as inexperienced and calling him a fraud offer no foundation for their accusations and are basically repeating Republican propaganda--not to mention a thinly veiled tone of racism. Obama has a lot of experience and a long list of accomplishments. It seems that for some people, "experience" means the number of years spent in Washington, DC.
This may surprise some people, but Washington, DC, is not the only place where one can acquire experience relevant to the office of the President. And like someone else said, Obama's experience as a professor of Constitutional Law is very relevant to the Presidency, especially after all these years of the Bush Administration's attempt to shred the U.S. Constitution and erase it from the nation's memory.

Only Biden, Richardson, and McCain have more foreign policy experience than Obama. Without some extraordinary shakeup in the campaign, Biden and Richardson have no chance of winning the nomination. McCain is not likely to win the Republican nomination either, though he's the only Republican in the group I'd ever even think about voting for.

dave--"One could argue that the decline in crime in the 90's correlates to the availability of microwave ovens in the 70's and early 80's, too."

Sure, one can make an argument pretty much about anything. Verifiability is another matter.

dave--"The notion that birth control contributes to a lower crime rate would mean that crime should have been raging out of control in the pre-pill years."

This is in fact considered to be a causality, not merely correlation. I am sure you are aware that there in fact WAS a statistically (very) significant decrease in the relative amount of crime in that time period.

"Let me know when you get there. As it is, I'm sticking with my microwave theory for now..."

I don't trust them either. Leaky seals and all that...

_Colin,
"If the gov (fedearl, state, local) proactively worked to expand access (nothing mandatory, as I respect points like those made by Mike) to birth control I think the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, and therefore the number of abortions, could be dramatically reduced."

It would be mandatory in the sense that all taxpayers would be funding this, whether they agreed with it or not. You are probably correct that unwanted pregnancies would decrease if everyone used and had access to birth control. Some parents (myself being one) have issues with many of the ways this is being implemented. While I am not against birth control for consenting adults, I am against many of the ways governments choose to implement this.

bsimon,
"I've just started "freakonomics" - but haven't yet reached the chapter on that subject." Let me know when you get there. As it is, I'm sticking with my microwave theory for now...

"The notion that birth control contributes to a lower crime rate would mean that crime should have been raging out of control in the pre-pill years. I don't think that was the case."

I've just started "freakonomics" - but haven't yet reached the chapter on that subject. My understanding of the theory, at this point, is that it has to do with the number of adolescent boys growing up in poverty & that legalized abortion has diminished the number of such kids, as a percentage of total population. Part of the evidence is that the crime rate in the 80s was skyrocketing, predicted to continue growing at an astronomical rate and then... didn't. This theory argues that the cause wasn't more police, or a booming economy, or any of the other changes we tend to credit for the change, but legalized abortion, though the impact wasn't realized for nearly 2 decades. On the one hand the idea is somehow offensive, but on the other it sure takes the wind of Giulianni's sails...

Something that's often lost in the abortion debate, of course, is that many of us who identify as strongly pro-choice agree with the sentiment expressed by Mark. It really is a shame that folks can't talk about this issue more rationally, b/c I think there is ample room to forge a consensus if we look at family planning more generally.

If the gov (fedearl, state, local) proactively worked to expand access (nothing mandatory, as I respect points like those made by Mike) to birth control I think the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, and therefore the number of abortions, could be dramatically reduced. That would seem to be a goal everyone agrees with, yet we're not doing that today. Very frustrating.

dave, when I was in law school, a female law student friend of ours became pregnant by a graduate psych student, who suddenly wanted nothing to do with her. 3 of us supported her through her pregnancy and made steak dinner for her every night.

She hid out for a semester in a duplex in north Austin where the other 2 guys lived across the hall - we picked it for remoteness. They paid her rent. We kept her a "secret". Two of us became licensed the semester she hid out, and thus earned actual paychecks.

I paid for the delivery at The Home of the Holy Infancy. The nuns were surprised that I was not the father. The boy weighed in at 12 lbs. [all that steak] and was adopted.

The young woman lawyer paid me back every cent when I came back from the Navy, totally unrequested by me. I suspect she reimbursed my other two friends for the rent, too. Never asked.

20 years later the father called my law office from Canada where he lived since his PhD, looking for "his" child to provide a donor match for a later offspring of his.

We found the young man as a happy honor student at A&M [1987]. He bore no resentment; happy to try, but he was not a donor match. Sadly, his birth mother, our friend, could not bear to be involved in any of this.

Both of my other two friends who supported her in 1967 are dead now. But the three of us, and our sister law student, were among the many who share your emotional revulsion for elective abortion.

prjonp: Your assement comes despite the assumption that the dems should win in 08. I kinda disagree with you and others that are thinking along these lines, for I have thought for a long time Hillary is the only dem that can win in 08 among the current hopefuls. These are all good people, but the repubs, from what I have seen and heard, are only afraid of Hillary. This is something I cannot explain, but each of them has something that, in the General, folks will not vote for them, instead they will not vote or go to another party on the ballot. I have talked with well over a hundred people and most of them agree with my thoughts.

mark_in_austin,
Thanks for the Row V Wade posts - interesting. I tend to agree with roo_P on the abortion ban that it is not necessarily an issue of faith or a particular religion. I became a lot more anti-abortion when I saw the first ultrasound of my first child.

"In fact, the opposite has far more going for it. The decline in crime in the 90's, for example, is attributable at least in part to the more ready availability of conception control in the 70's and early 80's according to quite a few studies."

One could argue that the decline in crime in the 90's correlates to the availability of microwave ovens in the 70's and early 80's, too. The notion that birth control contributes to a lower crime rate would mean that crime should have been raging out of control in the pre-pill years. I don't think that was the case.

Since it's ELECTABILITY TIME, let's start assessing the viability of the candidates for the general election.

Here's my assessment of the candidates now.

HILLARY
50% chance of winning the general--If she makes it she'll look like Rocky at the end of the final round, and the country will feel like it for the next four years. Wait, we feel like that now... I have a negative reaction against being stuck with 2 Clintons and 2 Bushes in sequence. Something anti-Democratic about it. I think we need a clean break.

OBAMA
35% chance of winning the general--He'll get hammered hard on so many little and big things it won't be pretty. He doesn't like to put his hand over his chest during the national anthem. Middle name "Hussein"--anyone foresee "scare tactics" by Republican swiftboaters? It's already happening. I don't care about either of these, but others will. He tried "blow" (as if we need another one of those in control of our military). A message of "hope", but unfortunately for the Republican or an independent candidate.

EDWARDS
40% chance of winning the general--He's becoming more and more unrealistic and desperate in his comments. He wants the US to get rid of it's nukes? (I don't see this playing well in the general) The only positive is he's a southerner which won't help much.

RICHARDSON
40% chance of winning--He's been stunningly simplistic and incapable for his resume. I'm very surprised he's seeing a slight bump in Iowa.

BIDEN
55% chance of winning--A Northeasterner with a midwest sensibility. His best shot is probably an outcome like Edwards in 2004 which won't get him to the nomination. People don't like old, but they like ancient. 35 years may put him in the second category.

the Iowa voters have learned after running for a "winner" in Kerry that nothing is promised tomorrow today. they're going to go with not only a winner, but someone they can believe in, Barack Obama.

With regard to a complete abortion ban, I disagree that it is necessarily an issue of faith or a particular religion in that the crucial question is whether a zygote is considered a person or a proto-person or a potential person of a degree where it would be immoral to end its existence.

Huckabee may think that a zygote is a person because God said so but someone else may simply view it as destroying potential.

The conventional plain "privacy" argument for abortion is nonsensical, privacy is not valid grounds for dismissal in any other murder case. The only context where it is feasible is the view of a zygote or embryo as a non-human (or, for some, non-sentient) entity.

mark_in_austin--Yep, specifically 13-25 from the lower income brackets who are the most prone to crime to begin with.

Demographic shifts and baby booms aside, availability of contraception is responsible for a good part of this. Generally lack of crime is not considered a BAD effect.

I am certainly not an eugenicist, but there is absolutely zero proof for USMC_Mike's assertion and a reasonable amount for the exact opposite.

The role of sex education and contraception in disease- and poverty prevention is related, as well.

roo, are the studies you refer to simply reflecting that a depressed level of 16-20 year old males in the population results in lower crime rates?

That has been a known statistical correlation for a very long time. So a reduction in birth rates would result in lower crime rates
later.

Or is there more?

Mike, I agree with you about Friday. The worst thing that could happen to UT would be to "back into" a BCS bowl where they would be killed by a good team, IMHO.

I never intended to denigrate faith or its role in our making ethical decisions and when I reviewed what I wrote, I do not think that I did.

So I would restate: IF MH wants to outlaw all abortions, the EFFECT would be
to force a specific faith conclusion on all faiths and upon the faithless, as well. That would be the EFFECT, without regard to the source of MH's view, I think.

Hook 'em.

USMC_Mike--"Access to birth control on-demand generally leads to bad things in society."

This is COMPLETELY unsupported by any factual studies in the last 30+ years.

In fact, the opposite has far more going for it. The decline in crime in the 90's, for example, is attributable at least in part to the more ready availability of conception control in the 70's and early 80's according to quite a few studies.

Many think Hillary and her gang know how to run an effctive campaign and because of this may have the best shot of defeating the Republicans. Certainly Clinton and hre campaign are good at the political game but that may not translate into a win in Nov 08. Many/most Americans are desperately sick of old style hard core politics and simply want new blood in the WH. This attitude gives Barack Obama the advantage.

Chris:

I wonder if you can ask Jon Cohen about this "internal" question.

"when the sample was asked which candidates "has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008?" Clinton led with 39 percent followed by Obama at 25 percent and Edwards at 22 percent."

I'm just not sure that question tells us anything about support for the candidates. I am an Iowan and an Obama supporter, but I think I would still have to respond "Hillary" to that question. She leads in national polls and is the clear favorite. Does that question really tell us anything about how caucus-goers really feel about who would be best suited to carry the torch for the party or is it really just asking people for their best guess about who will win the whole enchilada?

MJP

Well, if Iowans vote with their heads and not their hearts, then their heads should remind them that voting with their "heads" last time resulted in a disasterous defeat. Hillary is not the best Dem candidate with "heart" or "head" -- all they need is common sense to see that.

Jade: I agree that the kind of "experience" Hillary has had dealing with all types of sordid scandals is not really what the American people are looking for in experience.

Proud -- your "refutations" are weak at best. I think you get the picture. Access to birth control on-demand generally leads to bad things in society.

Claudia -- I agree with you that abortion can't be (and isn't) a black and white debate.

Mark -- I appreciate your RvW postings. I am not surprised to learn that "persons" in the Constitution primarily refer to born people.

I think it is unfair to ask a person to separate his religious and political views, especially on a moral issue.

By blaming a political view on a religious view, it almost seems like you would rather us NOT form our moral beliefs from religious foundations.

I don't know how possible that is, and think most people's religion influences their beliefs.

So I guess I'm not disagreeing that Huck's pro-life position undoubtedly stems from his religious life; I am saying it's unfair to attack his position solely because it stems from his faith because that means we are not allowed to have faith-based opinions.

Regarding Friday, I think it's a toss-up. We all know that A&M is bad, but Texas might just be the most over-rated team of the season (especially at the beginning).

If Hillary gets a pass on experience because voters recognize her name or face more than they do the other candidates, then maybe one of other candidates should change his name to "Santa Claus" and don a beard.

It's troubling that these same Democratic voters who were distressed at the scandalous way Bill Clinton conducted his White House, now have no memory of that time. The infamous blue dress and the "ewwwwwwwwwww" factor of the President doing who knows what with a cigar and Monica in his private study, well, even I had difficulty defending that one.

As many have already said Hillary DOES possess a set of experience that no candidate in this race has: weathering a seedy, sordid sex scandal (Gennifer Flowers); and another one (Paula Jones); and another one (Monica Lewinsky). Hillary has experience testifying before a grand jury; before the House and Senate (and not in a good way); being investigated by the FBI for missing billing records; investigated by a Special Prosecutor for Whitewater (and all the rest of the scandals); being the target of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

We should be thankful that none of the other Democratic candidates are as experienced as she.

Those of us who support candidates not named Clinton should make certain that other voters can remember what was really happening in the Clinton administrations, '92 and '96. Then Hillary may not be so attractive a choice.

Hillary ship is sinking. The Iowanians have wised up to her sinister schemes. Even her pathtic husband won't be able to save her now. Obama is on the rise and the timing is perfect!

femalenick: I hope Hillary wins Iowa, but I can't go as far as to predict she will. The big story now is Scott McClellan and his coming book, about the CIA leak. This is going to be talked about around the country on Turkey Day by a whole bunch of folks, that is a sure thing.

Hillary Clinton is not inspiring and is not a leader. She is a smart campaigner and knows how to play the politcal game but that is not what America needs right now.

These polls are dumb and meaningless. I would like to remind all of a 12/8/03 Iowa poll conducted by Pew: Howard Dean 29%, Dick Gephardt 21%, John Kerry 18%, John Edwards 5%.

ACTUAL - John Kerry 38%, John Edwards 32%, and Howard Dean 18%.

What that tells me is that Iowans vote with their heads and not with their hearts. In that instance, the "head" issue was electability. I think the same is true this time around with experience being an even more important factor, given that we're in the midst of a war, our foreign policy in disarray, and economic uncertainty now looming.

Because perception is reality, I predict Iowans will pick Hillary - and the only one of the rest who might surprise us is Joe Biden.

Obama's time is in the future - not now. And Edwards' time has passed.

USMC_Mike--You are just offering rationalisations. There is no difference between your "natural" and most people's "artificial" conception control.

The intention is the same, the end-result is the same. If you feel that your god only allows sex for procreation, both are wrong. If you feel that your god allows having sex while avoiding procreation, then both means are fine.

Irreducible logic.

roo_P - I still have faith in voter in Iowa (they are the best educated voters in the nation) and at the end of the day, they will not give their support to Obama (just as they didn't to Dean or Bradley) - they like the guy, (and I don't know why anyone wouldn't like him on a personal level) but will determine he lacks the experiences to be the Dem nominee. The race for the Whitehouse isn't going to be the cakewalk he had in his Senate race against that wingnut from Baltimore.

Way to go, proud. Well said.

As to the abortion part, I think there is the possiblity of some common ground as to when it is permissable. I dislike the idea of any sort of late term abortion, for instance, but I did work with a married woman, who discovered in her fifth month that there was a triple chromosonal defect, which results in ancephaly -- litteral no brain, no conciousness. Plus skeletal and organ defects.

I cannot imagine denying abortion to her. It's just so much more complicated than that--not the black and white debate we have today.

Sheridan1 - I am quite a guy - and a very well informed one as well. Obama is not untarnished by lobbyists (very few Chicago politicians are); you need to look at his relationship to lobbyist at the state level and those advising his campaign in NV. Be informed before you speak Sheridan - your opinions are exactly that, but should be informed opinions rather than uninformed ones.

So Mike, what will happen Friday?

Mike, this is the short of why the religious views did not ultimately weigh more heavily
in Roe:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54

Mike, this is a short excerpt of the discussion in Roe of the amicus briefs of the religious bodies:

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church.

USMC, What about the low regard/respect for women under Islam/ Sharia law? Is that also due to the advent of modern contraception?

--Lots of premarital sex. I would argue that this has been happening since well before modern methods became available. Bear in mind, people have been using crude forms of contraception since ancient Egypt.

--Low respect for human life. Due to women taking ethinyl estradiol or men putting on a raincoat? C'mon.

--Increase in sex crimes and pornography. I don't see how that is related to contraceptive use, but I agree it is a problem.

I can agree with some of that logic being used to argue agaist abortion, but not against contraception.

"the Merck company website, a company that profits from selling you birth control, is not a medical journal"

Au contraire, USMC, the Merck Manual (link above) is a very well respected reference source for medical professionals, and now the public as well in the online form.

I base my professional opinion on facts and not on advertisments or propaganda, and believe me when I tell you I know the difference.

Mike, it honestly had not occurred to me that the proposal to outlaw abortions under all circumstances could be anything but a religious view.

In Roe, there is an interesting historical discussion of what Christians [and I think Jews] said about abortion at various times.

This discussion has never been conducted in my presence without a call to some religious authority, but if it is being argued from some other source, I would be curious to know. Really.

NFP works with human fertility, rather than against it.

Precluding the possibility of pregnancy through artificial means is not the same as avoidance through natural means.

Using chemicals or artificial barriers works AGAINST God in the creation of life, whereas NFP works WITH God.

There are a lot of non-religious benefits too, which would be hard and lengthy to articulate.

Most Importantly>>>

There was an extremely profetic document written in 1964 by Paul VI, which discussed birth control.

He translated exactly what we see today, 50 years later, as a result of readily-available birth-control:

--Low regard/respect for women

--Lots of premarital sex

--Low respect for human life

--Increase in sex crimes and pornography

--General degrading morality of the society

If the "stone age" is before these things, I doubt you would really be opposed to it.

Check out the article by Scott McClellan on MSNBC about the CIA leak. This confirms what I have been saying for a long time now, my Crystal Ball is working again.

Obviously a link from the Merck company website, a company that profits from selling you birth control, is not a medical journal Proud. Come on.

proud asks
"If you disagree with contraception as a rule to prevent pregnancy, then why is it permissable to go to these extremes in order to avoid conception, thereby using knowledge and planning to circumvent what nature/God intended?"

Thats the part I don't get. No method is foolproof anyway, but if you're going to try to circumvent nature, why not go all out and use a physical or chemical barrier?

USMC, No, I'm not misinformed at all. Here is a link to a medical journal that details everything I just discussed.

http://merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch255/ch255b.html

I think it's interesting to note that sperm can survive (and fertilize an egg) up to 5 days after intercourse. This fact alone renders such "natural" methods quite unreliable for most women.

Question- If you disagree with contraception as a rule to prevent pregnancy, then why is it permissable to go to these extremes in order to avoid conception, thereby using knowledge and planning to circumvent what nature/God intended?

...And even if he does, you can't extrapolate that to be a "religious" view, just because he's a former minister.

Maybe he would be imposing a narrow view on America, but it's unfair to arbitrarily call it a narrow "religious view".

Mark, I don't know if Huck wants a Constitutional ban on all abortions, without exception.

Claudia,

"Not by government power, of course."

That means that I don't think the gvmt should be involved. We agree.

Proud, you're a little misinformed, but you raise some OK points. For now, I'll just agree to disagree. The stone age comment was a little over the top.

dave, I have posted to this matter before.
as Aggie Mike and I have discussed, it may have been better for Roe never to have been accepted for argument because of some of the peculiarities it raises.
Very briefly -

strong point is that 5thA and 14th A protect the life, liberty, and property of persons born and naturalized or legally present and there is no literal protection for the unborn. "Life" is not the issue. Texas tried to argue that conception = birth for Constitutional purposes and it does not.

Weak point is the raising of medical ethics to be a constitutional standard. Do away with the weak point and a state could preempt elective abortions, leaving only life and physical health of the mother as issues [the "life" interests of the born person, the mother, but not her convenience issues, which arise because under medical ethics the mother is the patient in the doctor-patient relationship].

The muddle was the extension of "born" to include "viable outside the womb", a condition that is gradually being pushed back in time toward conception, which will give fetus ever more standing - and if the "medical ethics" point is overtuned will starkly diminish the original effect of Roe.

But we cannot prohibit abortions totally in all states without a constitutional amendment even if Roe is limited, or reversed.

Mike, most Americans want some kind of abortions to be legal, and many religions recognize abortion under some circumstances, so a Constitutional ban on all abortions is the imposition of one religious view on everyone.

USMC writes about Natural Family Planning: "It's over 99% effective and uses no birth control.
Of course, the catch is that you and your partner have to be faithful, monogamous, and good communicators"

A couple of clarifications....firstly, that method of contraception is not 99% effective, it is UP TO 98% effective with perfect use.

Second, "the catch" as you put it, is that perfect use of the method requires that the woman check cervical mucus several times a day, check her basal temperature each morning before getting out of bed, maintain a rigorous calendar of menstrual cycle days, symptoms, temperature, etc, AND abstain from intercourse for up to 10 days each month after her menstrual cycle.

It boggles the mind how a man could view this as a viable option for the vast majority of women in this country, let alone the rest of the world.

If you view the advancements in women's lives since the advent of oral contraceptives as negative, then I advise you to go back to the stone age, with all due respect. I agree with claudia on this one.

Shailaugh Murray has a new post at The Trail on the foreign policy creds battle. Sen Clinton made pointed remarks about Obama's reference to living overseas as a child in a speech today. One of the Obama campaign's responses:

"Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

Ya think Iowa voters will pick up on another example of 'do what I say, not what I do?'

clawrence35--"Relax - if Clinton comes within even spitting distance in Iowa, they will spin this and she is likely to run the tables in the following elections."

Ah, yes.. the expectations game. Just a few weeks ago, Clinton was going to "wipe the table" in Iowa. I will try to vigilantly remind everyone of this.

USMC -- you are against birth control, I am for it. I don't think it's government's business to tell my husband and I when and how we can have sex and/or children.

I just don't understand how anyone can say they are for limited government and then hand this much power over your personal life to them.

The most important polls right now are about "second choices," which Clinton seems to be for few. My seat-of-pants analysis (grounded with what little data there is of it) indicates that Kuchinich, Edwards and Obama's supporters are pretty much "interchangeable" wherease the rest break a bit more evenly.

This particular poll is only significant in that it shows a clear, over-margin-of-error increase in support for Obama even slightly after the "great" debate for Clinton.

I'm against birth control.

Not by government power, of course.

I don't think Huck wants to make condoms illegal.

Anyone interested should read in to Natural Family Planning (NFP).

It's over 99% effective and uses no birth control.

Of course, the catch is that you and your partner have to be faithful, monogamous, and good communicators.

I am a middle of the road independent who is deeply discouraged by the leading presidential candidates of both parties. While Giuliani and Clinton might be closest to my personal world view, I dread a Rudy-Hillary contest. Also, I cannot quite stomach either one of them on a personal level.

Of all the candidates running, I believe Joe Biden would make the best president. I agree with Mark's R friend that we need a return to a bi-partisan foreign policy and Biden would be better able to get us there than any of the other candidates.

Zouk, it is far more expensive to create stem cells under this new method. Most of the stem cells the religious right oppose come from discarded embryos in fertility clinics. Furthermore, we are still quite a ways from being able to use the new method. But, I do applaud the development - we would all be better off if this method succeeds.

'Since when did pro-life become radical?'

When you say that all abortion should be banned -- no matter whether a child is raped by her own father, or a fetus is so deformed it won't live through birth. It makes government the sole arbiter of human life and takes away any power a woman/couple may have over her body and medical care. It's one thing to say ther should be some restrictions on it, another to say it's entirely up to the government to decide .

And he's not only against abortion but birth control. I would say in america today, that's pretty radical.

If you dig into the numbers, looks like Obama's biggest weakness is health care. And that sort of makes sense, in that his is the most complex and least universal plan. It might be too late for Team Obama to retool their health care plan, but it could clearly use some tinkering.

Hillary's biggest weakness is Iraq. Not surprising either, since five years later she's as opaque as ever on What We Should Do. And, ouch, 45% of Iowa Democrats think she is not willing to say what she really thinks about the issues. Obama and Edwards are at 20% on that one.

Hillary has a ceiling among Dem voters, probably lower in Iowa because more of them are paying closer attention, but a ceiling everywhere. Will be interesting to see if the ABC sentiment congeals around any one candidate.

As an aside, I don't think Dems have to obsess about electability this time around. People like us. People really, really like us. Any of the first or second tier Dems should be able to beat any of the first or second tier Pubs. We just need to find the best candidate. Period.

Since when did pro-life become radical?

Yes, Mark -- just saw your post. Huckabee, despite the guitar and humor, is really quite radical. Too bad.

"He has a singular religious view, not shared by most Americans, and he would impose it by amending the Constitution. We did not approve."

Mark, I don't think his *Baptist* beliefs contradict abortion.

Every Sunday in Mass, we pray for an end to abortion.

mark_in_austin,
Just out of curiosity and because I am not a lawyer, what is the strong premise of Roe v Wade? And why does the life of an unborn trumps the health of a born person - in all instances turn the constitution on its head?

'Here is what Dayton is getting at. Fairtax.org, a 504 (c) 4, filled at least 20 buses worth of economically conservative Iowans and drove them to the straw poll. Of the mainstream Republican candidates, only Huckabee has made the Fair Tax a staple of his domestic policy program.

Here's another source of Huckabee's strength: home schoolers. It's true -- a campaign tells me that national home school advocate Michael Farris helped to organize a train of car poolers for Iowa homeschools and points out that Huckabee had two breakfast meetings on Saturday morning with some of his more ardent home-school-parent supporters.'

By doing a little actual research about the Iowa straw poll, I'm finding out who the actual supporters and positions of Huckabee. Apparently, a major peg is switching from an income tax to a national sales tax. Anothr is guns and home schooling.

I also discovered -- to my dismay, that he had accepted the endorsement of the lunatic Tim La Haye, author of the vicious Left Behind books, the main theme of which is the Rapture, wich is, that everyone who is christian gets lifted straight into heaven, while everyone who refuses to convert is horribly tortured, which even some christians have criticized:

'Other Christians have criticized his series as a whole as portraying the book of Revelation with a selective literalism, choosing to take some things literally (such as the violence) and others as metaphor (the Beast) as it suits his point of view. In The Rapture Exposed, a number of criticisms are raised regarding the series. In particular, the excessive, voyeuristic focus on violence appears to contradict the message of peace that Christ himself preached. Also, the type of dispensationalism in the Left Behind series tends to reinforce the point of view that the end of the world is near, so there is no need to be concerned about stewardship over the environment, care for the poor, or solving social ills. LaHaye's response to such criticisms is to write them off for not taking a literal, inerrant interpretation of scripture.'

Claudia: "I don't think I would like a former minister, priest, rabbi or iman or any kind of clergy as president."

After a slew of lobbyists, lawyers, and MBA's, maybe a minister might not be so bad.

Some people may surprise you. Who would have known a B-list actor would have been so influencial?

claudialong,
"I know someone who's paying 35% now -- on all her cards.she lost her job, got behind and now has lost everything she ever had and still can't go bankrupt."

Don't overextend yourself and have a adequate rainy day savings pot. That said, I would have to agree that this sounds harsh. Did she have no family or friends that could help her out? What I will tell you is that I know that the old bankruptcy laws were much too lax. There were people I know that went bankrupt and still manage to live almost as recklessly as they did prior. And who pays for the backrupcy? The rest of us. Has the pendulum swung too far the other way? Hard to say yet (your friend notwithstanding).

What a FUN day! Being on the left Coast gives us so much time to read comments. Clawrence - what a guy. Your opinions are exactly that. Be informed before you speak.
And this:
"What is the "natural base" for Obama? Tall, skinny, Democratic, well-spoken, mixed-race men over 40?"
Sure,judge.c.crater, I'm sure that's exactly why he is doing so well. You mention those of us who have been around for a while. I am one of those who was there campaigning for Bobby Kennedy and will be out for Omaba or Biden if they are the nominees.
Remeber people, Hillary is NOT Bill. I know you want him back - he is quite the charmer, isn't he?
Obama is the real thing - just a man - not a black man, not a white man, not a backroom politician, not tarnished by lobbyists, and a real statesman. And regarding his halting style of answering questions - that's the sound of an actual brain working. Perhaps we have forgotten how Bobby stuttered.
Nevertheless, ANY Democrat, including Hillary, would be a refreshing change to what we have seen in Washington for the past 8 years. Hillary's negatives concern me although I can't imagine the R's actually putting Rudy under national scrutiny.
These are indeed interesting times.

Jade,

"...when, if ever, he saw Mrs. Clinton at a cabinet meeting"

is an interesting take.

"Forrestina Gump" was clever, too.
-----------------------------------
Just was doing business with a lawyer my age who is a long time supporter of Rs. He assumes Rs and Ds should go ahead and fight vehemently about domestic policy but he wants a coherent bipartisan foreign policy again. He remains very conservative on fiscal issues, but has fretted about TX becoming a one party state. Does not think one-party politics works at all.
--------------------------------
drindl, while we were on the road listening to CSpan I heard MH compare abortion to slavery as an issue. Roe v. Wade is a case built on one strong and one weak premise -
and a good constitutional lawyer could easily limit it to its strong premise. But MH's idea is that the life of an unborn trumps the health of a born person - in all instances. That turns the constitution on its head and requires an Amendment, not a "mere" correction of Roe. He has a singular religious view, not shared by most Americans, and he would impose it by amending the Constitution. We did not approve.

jade7243- nice post. I only quote the conclusion here, but the entire piece deserves recognition.

"Hillary has been padding her resume with that of her husband and other members of his OFFICIAL cabinet. Absent any real, documentable experience, Hillary is underqualified, and needs to fess up."

I agree entirely.

jade7243,
According to the AP/Yahoo poll, 76% of Democrats see her as "experienced". That number is substantially higher than Obama(35%) and Edwards(57%). Clinton's history is well known - there is no question of name recognition, especially amongst Democrats. You have an uphill, in fact waaay uphill, climb to convince people otherwise. Mind you, I am not disputing your point, just simply stating that most Democrats see her as experienced, for whatever reason. Maybe she gets brownie points for being married to Bill, maybe people are just idiots/uninformed, or maybe people believe that "occasional "pillow talk" to her husband" is valuable experience. In the FWIW category, I personally think that a resume is the second most overrated thing to look at in choosing a candidate (first on my list is an endorsement).

This is what's driving Huckabee's 'surge' in Iowa:

'It is support from evangelicals like Whiting that is driving Huckabee's surge in Iowa, where Christian conservatives make up an estimated 40 percent of the GOP vote.

Matt Reisetter, a young evangelical leader who signed onto the Huckabee campaign this month, said the former Arkansas governor is gaining momentum among pastors across Iowa with his anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage record and because Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, speaks their language.
"We don't question where he's at, we don't question what he believes. He's one of us," said Reisetter.

'He's one of us' That's what bothers me. And I WANT to like him. But the Bush administration has so dangerously weakened the wall between church and state, and this guy might be a lot worse. He's a former Baptist minister after all. I don't think I would like a former minister, priest, rabbi or iman or any kind of clergy as president.

Chris, I know you love your Heart vs. Head narrative but you forget one thing when you talk about it. As voters we don't need to make an either or choice. With Edwards we can have both. You were just on MSNBC a moment ago when they reported that Hilliary led on experience (Edwards 2nd, Obama 4th). And Obama led on truthworthyness (Edwards 2nd and Hilliary way down). You used your "heart vs head" narrative to explain the poll. I suggest that the voters can have both because Edwards was 2nd in both categories and trumps both of them.

-pamela writes
"[Sen Biden's] vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill continues to bothers. Any thoughts on that from you Biden supporters?"

I'm willing to overlook that vote in favor of relevant foreign policy experience. At one time I viewed that vote as a deal-breaker, but have since softened,'

exactly my sentiments, bsimon. i didn't like it at the time, I hate it even worse now. the bill allows creditors to raise the interest rates on any credit card debt someone holds, no matter which company, if they are late on any one payment and i don't think there's even a cap. I know someone who's paying 35% now -- on all her cards.she lost her job, got behind and now has lost everything she ever had and still can't go bankrupt.

howe3ver--it is the sad reality of our campaign system that you have to make deals with the devil to get elected. so i'm giving him this one, because we desperately need someone with his foreign policy cred or we could have a nuclear WW3 in short order. not to mention oil at $200 a barrel.

Chris Cillizza and just about all of the other Post reporters, columnist, and paid bloggers have foisted Mrs. Clinton's inevitability and her so-called experience upon for months. However, I find it telling that, with all of the resources available to the Post, with its vast archives of reporting from the (BILL) Clinton administration, they cannot go back and substantiate for the voter ANY of Mrs. Clinton's claims to have been a "presidential advisor" or any of her other claims to unique experience that would qualify her, head and shoulders above any of the other candidates, including Mr. Obama.

To wit, Laura D'Angelo Tyson, was a presidential advisor and chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. We can document that. David Gergen, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents was brought in as a presidential advisor, as was Dick Morris (who later had to leave his post when his own sex scandal with a prostitute was revealed). We can document both of them.

We should ask those persons who were in the White House at the time, whether or not Hillary Rodham Clinton was in fact a bona fide "presidential advisor" and not merely providing occasional "pillow talk" to her husband. If fact, we should ask Gov. Bill Richardson, who was Secretary of Energy, when, if ever, he saw Mrs. Clinton at a cabinet meeting. We should ask if anybody ever saw her in the Situation Room (and I don't mean with Wolf Blitzenfartung). We should scour photos of meetings taken by the media at photo ops to see if Hillary is lurking in the background like Forrestina Gump. We should question the reporters assigned to the First Lady beat to check their notes and tell us what "foreign policy" work she was doing. Did she work with Madeleine Albright? Goodwill ambassador describes Angelina Jolie's work, too.

Hillary has been padding her resume with that of her husband and other members of his OFFICIAL cabinet. Absent any real, documentable experience, Hillary is underqualified, and needs to fess up.

These new poll numbers are showing that voters are starting to get it. Hillary ain't all she's cracked up to be.

Posted by: judge.c.crater

"What is the "natural base" for Obama? Tall, skinny, Democratic, well-spoken, mixed-race men over 40?"

Well put. Also, I would group myself in your "#2", having originally supported Gravel. I know, I'm nuts. I'll still vote for him if Hillary's getting her a** handed to her by the time Maryland gets around, if not, Obama's got my vote. It looks like things actually happen inside that man's head (contrast-Clinton). Also, I don't like Edwards' smile... seems so fake.

Have to partially agree with lylepink; the polling data has shown Edwards' support trending downwards over the past few weeks. In a way, today's polling result is simply the culmination of:
1. Voters coming to the conclusion that Edwards cannot win and
2. The Anybody But Clinton impulse.

I suspect that Edwards' decision to go into attack dog mode against Clinton may partially be to blame for #1. #2 is perfectly understandable.

The same thing is happening over on the R side as Guiliani's support softens or stays flat while Romney's builds.

I watched the recent D debate with my wife, my sis, and my bro-in-law. I wrote of their reactions previously, some days ago.

I thought I would have handled the DL/IA question, cold, better than BHO and I would have definitely handled the HRC crowd to my advantage.

DL/IA: It is both a state public safety and a national security issue. Both concerns can be addressed if licensing IAs
is integrated into the national hardened ID program to find and keep track of IAs. The
DL will have to be easily distinguished on its face from the DL of a lawful resident.

crowd control: I want my supporters in this audience to remain polite, and not take this bait. Please listen to Sen. Clinton and the others when they speak, without interrupting. Thank you for your consideration.

Not fast on their feet, these frontrunners.
Might get caught from behind, yet.

BTW, I have seen McCain ask an audience to remain polite to his opponent.

"Those numbers suggest that the time and money Obama has dedicated in Iowa have altered the dynamics of the race..."

I am vindicated.

"...outside his most natural base..."

What is the "natural base" for Obama? Tall, skinny, Democratic, well-spoken, mixed-race men over 40?

Several months ago I thought Edwards was on a downward trend and at that time he was way ahead in Iowa. I heard from friends crossing the country and they said to not be suprised if Hillary won Iowa. Now it appears this has gone the full circle with each leading in polls at sometime in the last month or so. A day or two ago, I posted [somewhere] that I thought Edwards has just about been ruled out of any chance to get the 08 nod, and by the same token his support is going mainly to Obama, who, IMO, has ZERO chance of winning in 08. Us/We older folks know how big a part the media plays in building up or tearing down anyone, and from the start they have built Obama up and as of yet there has been no attempt to bring him down, and have been supporting Rudy all along. Look for this trend to continue.

-pamela writes
"[Sen Biden's] vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill continues to bothers. Any thoughts on that from you Biden supporters?"

I'm willing to overlook that vote in favor of relevant foreign policy experience. At one time I viewed that vote as a deal-breaker, but have since softened, mostly because the alternatives in the Clinton & Edwards candidacies are so unappealing.

"What exactly is Sen. Obama's position on giving licenses to illegal immigrants?"

What I got out of it is that 1) if states want to issue drivers licenses in order to further their public safety efforts, they are welcome to do so. 2) focusing on the driver's license issue is a red herring - not issuing DLs will not stop illegal immigration. 3) To stop illegal immigration, you have to cut off access to jobs. As the Senator said in the debate - though it was not included in the above excerpt - is that "Illegal immigrants come here not to drive, but to find work." (I paraphrase)

"don't let the level of noise of the loud left fool you. they don't win elections. Even the recent midterm was characterized by the 6 year itch and victorey by DINOs, not a liberal surge."

koz - Additionally, this time around they won't have that emotion-packed stem cell b.s. to rally behind with their actors-cum-research-scientists squeezing every ounce of sympathy from the masses.

"It verifies what we've been saying all along, that this is an area of biology with enormous promise," said Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000546_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007112000572

Turns out, the govt. didn't have to spend gazillions of dollars cloning human embryos just to destroy them after all.

USMC_Mike - It is only tragically untrue if the million of rational voters are bullied into believing that their votes don't count. It's do or die for this nations future, and we don't need any reinforcements of the dismissive nature by our politicians that your vote and voice don't count or matter. Too many people are discouraged by the cynical nature of our politics, but the truth is they are the only ones who decide the outcome. The tragedy would be if they don't participate and allow the talking heads and press to determine the outcome.

Everyone I speak to agrees that Biden is the best candidate. It is high time for them to stand up insist on real experience, real legislative results, real leadership.

He may not have the media or the money behind him, but if he has the American people behind him, the other stuff doesn't determine the outcome.

I'm intrigued by the amount of support for Sen. Biden on this blog. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the polls nationwide, much less in Iowa. I agree that his expertise in foreign policy is needed at this time, and his health care policy seems reasonable, too. But his vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill continues to bothers. Any thoughts on that from you Biden supporters?

So, basically, what this poll is saying is that most voters:

a. want the MSM to do more analysis and reporting of POLICY positions and differences between the candidates;

b. not have the MSM pre-choose the Clinton and Guiliani choices the MSM have been trying to stuff down our throats for almost a year now; and

c. actually realize we choose Presidents for all of their policies and visions and not just because the MSM is comfortable with them.

Is that right, Chris?

If so, what is the chance you in the MSM might actually listen to what the poll is telling you America wants?

...watch for a shcoker: Edwards wins in Iowa ! ! !

He has the strongest support among previous caucaus voters. Hillary and Obama rely more heavily on "new" voters.

Edwards has a powerful Iowa organization. Watch for a Big Upset!

_Colin,
From the WaPo last April on our favorite populist presidential wannabe...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339_pf.html

Highlights include:
"Two years ago, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, gearing up for his second run at the Democratic presidential nomination, gave a speech decrying the "two different economies in this country: one for wealthy insiders and then one for everybody else."

Four months later, he began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders -- a hedge fund."

"When Fortress hired Edwards as an adviser in 2005, his spokeswoman said he was joining to provide "support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global issues." Among other things, Edwards met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the company's behalf in May 2006, around the time Germany was seeking more U.S. investments while also proposing tighter regulation of hedge funds, according to published reports."

Edwards..."ended his consulting deal when he launched his presidential campaign in December. But his ties to Fortress were suggested by the first round of campaign finance reports released last week. They showed that Edwards raised $167,460 in donations from Fortress employees for his 2008 presidential campaign, his largest source of support from a single company."

But most importantly, he opposes being distracted by it.

Ha Ha

Hillary Clinton (discussing Pakistan) on the link between democracy in an Islamic country and American security: "There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

Isn't that precisely what President Bush has been saying for years about Iraq? And isn't that idea exactly what Democrats have held in contempt?

Barack Obama on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: "When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention."

Obama on not giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: "I am not proposing that that's what we do. What I'm saying is that we can't -- [interrupted by laughter]. No, no, no, no, look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf [Blitzer], is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it."

What exactly is Sen. Obama's position on giving licenses to illegal immigrants? Clearly, he is for it and against it. But most importantly, he opposes being distracted by it.

The press and the polls do not have the final say, the voters do.

How tragically untrue.

mibrooks27 - You don't have to feel guilty for liking Lou Dobbs, there are millions of Americans who have been waiting for someone to express our disgust with the pandering and posturing of both parties to their respective bases all the while watching this nations governance go to pot.

I would prefer Biden as the Democratic nominee and disagree that he doesn't have a chance. Lou Dobbs has certainly expressed much of the outrage that millions of Americans feel toward this inept government and regardless of if he runs or not, he has done this nation an enormous service by taking our supposed leadership to task.

It isn't the talking heads in the press, the bloggers, or anyone other than the voters themselves who is the 'decider' of our future. The obstacles are formidable, but Biden can appeal to the voters who are the only ones who empower these candidates. The press and the polls do not have the final say, the voters do.

The polling period began prior to Thursday night's debate when Hillary was still dealing with the effects of two weeks of negative media coverage. The coverage for the next few days virtually unanimously declared that Hillary had won the debate and much focus was placed on Obama's mishandling of the illegal drivers license question. It is quite likely that these numbers will reverse in the next polls. There have been several polls putting Obama ahead in the last few months in Iowa that are shortly contradicted by another poll putting Hillary ahead.

_Colin,
"Both the jury and the appellate courts, at the time the cases went through the system, certainly found a sufficient connection. "

I don't doubt that. But if you were to have asked the the majority of medical researchers and doctors, they would not have come to that conclusion. They certainly wouldn't today. Regardless, it still stands as an accurate statement that Edwards made a ton of money off of awards from people who were not guilty of any malpractice. And, as an aside and possible coincidence, medical malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs is so high it is driving many doctors out of that specialty.

USMC -- I think so too, if the media would give him a chance. But the coverage from right and left has been unabashdly, uniformly in the bag for a match between Hillary and Rudy. Brawls sell newspapers, and everyone knows between the two of them wold be the mother of all dirty campaigns.

Unfortunately, most people don't dig into it and find out what the issues really are and who's the most qualified. they just come home from work and watch the TV news. And so we SoundBite Presidents.

I would be nice if journalists would use the power of the press responsibly, but don't hold your breath.

It's not that one shouldn't choose thier words carefully. It is that one shouold have considered these issues before being asked.

Obama - what do you think about Iran getting the bomb.

"Let me think about it and get back to you".

Remember the last time we had an inexperienced idealistic Dem president. his name was Jimmy carter. when USSR invaded Afghanistan he put on a sweater in protest and cancelled the Olympics. when our embassy was taken by Islamist killers, he stared into the abyss and did nothing - talk, talk. We don't need to talk to these guys, we need to kill them. Look how well killing them in Iraq is working out, once we decided to actually kill the enemy. what a concept. Never occured to the Libs. Of course reagan understood strength. clinton talked and talked. the result - ramp up the terror, no consequence signals weakness. we don't need to send any more of those signals. the other countries in the world are finally coming around. Germany, France, Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, all the eastern europe states, even Libya and N Korea are moving in the right direction. why would we go back to surrender and appeasement and talk, talk talk.

bsimon,
"His speaking style is indicative of a person choosing his words carefully, not of someone unsure of what they are saying."

I think you can make the arguement of how this is perceived both ways - "unsure of what to say" and "carefully choosing words". This might be problematic from a perception point of view. The presidency is not a position where you would want to give the perception, accurate or not, of being unsure. Obama needs to get a lot better at this.

Colin -- fair enough.

Claudia -- I like Biden too. And he could win.

_Colin - The ethics reform that Obama delivered in IL has not lead to end of the pay-to-play politics. The bill mandating video tape interrogations hasn't led to an end of police abuse (the taxpayers of Chicago have doled out more than $17 this year for police abuse including one case were someone had his rectum probed with a screw driver), and millions more in claims are working their way through the courts. Commander Burge and the area detectives responsible for the police torture that led to the death penalty suspension in IL are still collecting pensions have never been prosecuted. The Mayor of Chicago has never testified on his role as then Cook County States Attorney in ignoring prosecuting torture under his watch. Obama has endorsed several 'ethically' challenged incumbents within the Democratic machine (which is weak on good government issues) and he is far from having the strongest record on good government issues in this race (he used questionable election law technicalities to prevent a democratic debate for his first election campaign in addition to knocking off Colbert off the ballot in SC because he is so insecure of his own support and credentials with the young crowd he is counting on).

There are very legitimate reasons to prefer anyone but Obama. The facts are not inaccurate - the record of Senator Obama is short, but it speaks for itself. If we are to trust his judgment and his promise of changing the political culture of Washington based on his 'extensive' experience in IL, the record comes up lacking on results.

I want a Democrat in the Whitehouse, and believe this nation needs fundamental change, and cannot see myself ever supporting a Republican, but if my fellow party members nominate Obama at such a crucial time in this nations history, I would not vote for Obama and would fully support an independent candidate who could deliver more than the inept, corrupt, bankrupt leadership he has endorsed and supported in his home state.

Mike -- no hurt feelings, I just don't understand the basis for certain attacks on Obama.

Dave -- the only thing that's changed since Edwards won some of the trials you cited is the causation standard that's applied in those cases. Both the jury and the appellate courts, at the time the cases went through the system, certainly found a sufficient connection. As to the Hedge Fund question, I gather that you think Edwards became intimately familair with all of Fortress's ever-changing holdings in his 1 year working there on a part time basis, eh? If that's true, he's even smarter than I thought. And craftier, since those places gaurd their investment models zealously -- including from most of their employees.

Wolf: "Do you believe we should give driver's licenses to illegals?"

Obama: "I'm not proposing that's what we do"

Crowd: *Laughter*

Laughter at a candidate who surely knew that question would be asked again, after HRC's double-talk the week prior, but who was thrown on his heels like the inexperienced and naiive candidate that he is, and has continued to be.

Even if Obama snaggs Iowa from her, the Clinton-loving media will be like kids in a candy store waiting to portray her as another "come-back kid".

No matter what she does, win or lose, she is, and will be, the center of media attention. That is inevitability.

"I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence"

Yikes

I think what is actually happening in Iowa is this: all these polls started at the beginning of the year, before Barack Obama became well known. If you ask someone if they support someone with the last name Clinton (word association: American President, 1990s, etc) or if they support someone with the last name Obama (word association: obviously Osama) well of course they'd choose the Clinton.

I think that Obama has finally gotten name recognition, and MORE IMPORTANTLY Iowans have gotten to know Barack Obama's biography and experience, and believe in him.
(Remember, contrary to Hillary's claim of experience, the facts are the facts, and Obama has held office longer than her, majored in political science/international relations, and Obama taught constitutional law for 10 years. Hillary only wins the "experience" argument until you fact check.)

The more people get to know Obama, the more support he'll get. He's the only thoughtful, honest, candidate who also has cross-appeal to independant (and other) voters. (He also hasn't been living in the bubble of washsington politics for 35 years.)

I really like Biden, USMC. I think he's by far the most competent. For once I agree with zouk -- jeez, how did that happen? I like Obama, he's really smart and his story is compelling. But at this point, I'm not sure he's riiight for the job. We're in a bad, bad situation internationally, at great peril -- and we need someone mature, who really has a grasp of the situation. Pakistan is not only the terrorist capital of the world, but a nuclear powder keg. And so what do we do? Give them money which they spend on more nukes.Biden would, I'm sure, use some sticks along with all the carrots we've been giving them.

Now, how do y'all think THIS will effect the election?

'USAT fronts a new poll that reveals 78 percent of Americans believe the economy is getting worse, which is "the highest reading since the Gallup Organization started polling on the question in 1991." Only 20 percent of people are "satisfied with the direction of the country," which is the lowest point since May 1992.'

USMC Mike writes
"He will win neither the nomination nor the general."

Who will*?

*I don't know if he will either, but I also wouldn't argue he won't. Taking a 'today' snapshot, it looks like Clinton is stagnant in Iowa. Its quite possible she's going to come in 3rd, based on the amount of her support that are first-time caucus participants (if they show up). If she comes in 3rd in Iowa, the whole 'inevitability' nonsense flies out the window - for one thing it makes all the headlines nationwide that wake up all the people who aren't paying attention now. That is when it will be interesting to start watching the poll dave cites above.

In short, I think the 'Clinton is inevitable' thing is nonsense - and I say that not only out of wishful thinking, but out of what I think is reasonable analysis. If its not, how so?

_Colin,
"As far as Edwards goes, he actually made TENS OF MILLIONS suing very guilty Defendants who violated the law. He made a few hundred thousand by holding stock, since divested, in a Hedge Fund."

Actually, he also made TENS OF MILLIONS suing what turned out to be not so guilty defendants. John Edwards built his career suing doctors and hospitals, claiming that maternity-ward missteps caused newborns to develop cerebral palsy. The theory that doctor error is a common cause of CP was dubious when Mr. Edwards used it to win his cases, from the 1980s to the mid-1990s, and is universally rejected by experts today. But there is no denying that Edwards is a skilled speaker. The Boston Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

And as far as the hedge funds goes, according to the AP, he worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty in the United States. Edwards won't disclose how much he got paid as a consultant to Fortress Investment Group, but said he did keep the money. "It was primarily to learn, but making money was a good thing, too." So yes, I think Edwards knew exactly what he was invested in.

And again the media continues to ignore the other Dem candidates.

Hillary is not inevitable. Although it may be inevitable that her candidacy will prove to be divisive if anything.

bsimon -- I agree, but would also add that his choosing his words carefully is also the result of ---- choosing his words.

Something HRC doesn't need to do with her rehersed 60-second answers. A high school debater practices 60-second rehersed, rebuttals as well.

Obama at least comes off as thinking, not memorizing.

Donald Rumsfeld's privatization legacy. that sure has worked out well:

'The WP and NYT go inside with word that federal prosecutors have convened a grand jury and issued subpoenas to several Blackwater employees involved in the Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad. The Post gets word that the investigation "ranges well beyond Blackwater" and several other private security firms have also been subpoenaed for documents.

Everybody reports Iraqi soldiers detained 43 people after private security guards protecting a convoy shot and injured a woman in Baghdad. The private guards work for a company based in Dubai that has a contract with the U.S. military, but none of those detained were Americans. A government spokesman said the arrests should be seen as a message to contractors that "no one is above the law."'

Zouk writes
"Only problem is there is no umph there... he can't come to a resolution on many issues and seems to be very unsure of himself."

If you're speaking of Obama, I disagree. His speaking style is indicative of a person choosing his words carefully, not of someone unsure of what they are saying.

claudia -- what do you think of Biden?

Well I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

If Obama is your boy, good for you.

He will win neither the nomination nor the general.

"wonder if this will have any effect in an electin year?" Last I checked, George Bush was not running so I'm pretty sure this will not affect his electability.;

Since the book talks about not only the admnistratioin but also the machinations of the Republican party apparchiks in general, you may be wrong.

Since the "case" presented above was predicated on factually inaccurate statements Im not sure you want to rely on it. To the extent your argument, more broadly, is that he's a hypocrite b/c he's not perfect I fail to understand the point. He's decidedly NOT perfect, just better than any of the other candidates. That's enough for me.

Let us examine the fix the Dems have gotten themselves into. If they nominate clinton, essentially make a deal with the devil, they move somewhat toward the center, at least in theory, but give up all their syances on every issue and settle for Bush lite. they also accept rampant curruption and deceit as the reputation of their party for at least four years. the Repubs capitalize on the existing spite for all things clinton and the closet jammed with skeletons. Once the gneral begins, the hard questions will show that hillary is not bill and she is inept without him. then the question becomes "do we want anbother intern in the WH, this one not giving it up to bill?"

On the other hand, the Dems could go with the inspirational newcomer. Only problem is there is no umph there. (that is a tecnical term). he can't come to a resolution on many issues and seems to be very unsure of himself. He really doesn't have much experience, whcih it true despite the protestations. He will lose the election based on this and based on his rather extreme liberal views.

the most interesting thing is that the Dems seem to do this to themselves time after time. they refuse to nominate someone who could win - like biden. they treat edwards as if he has a chance.

the country is simply not that liberla, never has been. don't let the level of noise of the loud left fool you. they don't win elections. Even the recent midterm was characterized by the 6 year itch and victorey by DINOs, not a liberal surge.

I once again refer you to the case presented above.

By the way, fraud is not meant in the lawyery term here. I don't think anyone is saying that he has broken the law.

He is not what he portrays himself to be.

Although, that is neither unique to him, nor to politics. It's just more easily noticable when the difference between your appearance and reality is so great.

claudialong,
"wonder if this will have any effect in an electin year?" Last I checked, George Bush was not running so I'm pretty sure this will not affect his electability.

an't believe that anyone who seriously identifies as a Democrat would vote for ANY of the Republican candidates instead of Barack Obama. What we need to consider is how our Democratic candidate is going to succeed in energizing the Democratic Party as well as persuading Independents and disaffected Republicans to come out for them on Election Day. What we DON"T need is a candidate who is going to raise the volume of the Clinton Haters on the Right to such a crescendo that ordinary voters are turned off and stay home. Remember, we not only want to elect a Democrat to the White House, but we want to keep or expand the Democratic Majority in the House and the Senate. Many of the newly elected Representatives are in Republican Districts, and would be vulnerable to a massive and fearful Republican turnout in 2008.
So, who do we pick? Clinton has smarts and could do the job of administering the country, but she would have to get the Congress to cooperate, and although she has worked